ILF: Interim Progress Report

Jess Kaizar, Hong Tran, Tariq Islam

Agenda

• Problem Statement– Background and Assumptions

• Scenarios

• Technologies

• Cost Estimation

• Model Development

• Analysis

• Results

• WBS Status

• EVM Chart

2

Problem Statement

This project will serve to provide a background study on past wars in terms of their fuel usage, and compare them to the metrics of modern day warfare. What is needed, and what will be answered here subsequently is that given various future warfare scenarios, how will helicopters be leveraged and used in those scenarios? The largest issue being fuel efficiency, the efficiency of helicopters from a tactical perspective as well as a design perspective will need to be applied to each of the future scenarios to provide feasibility guidance in the next 10 to 20 years of helicopter production by vendors, specifically Sikorsky.

Approach and Methodology

1. Survey the use of energy in warfare throughout history and develop energy consumption metrics

2. Identify a range of representative scenarios• Primary missions• Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force

3.  Identify technologies for inspection and characterization4.  Conduct cost estimation of fuel prices in 2021 and 20315.  Model Scenarios6. Analysis

• Vary fuel price• Apply technologies• Conduct excursions for potential changes in future warfare

– Provide insight and recommendation for the impact of fuel efficiencies and rotary aircraft

 

Background Research

MetricsMetrics capture how fuel is expended and any benefits of increased fuel

efficiency

• Time to complete mission– Reduced mission time by removing the need to refuel eliminating delays

– Lighter aircraft may move faster

• Lift capacity– Carrying less fuel or building a lighter aircraft may allow additional lift capacity (up to

the structural limitations of the aircraft)

• Time on station (TOS)– Move efficient fuel/aircraft may extend legs or increase TOS

• Cost– Less fuel burned = lower cost

– Alternate fuel = lower price?

– All metrics will be translated into cost as well• $/mile• $/lb lift• $/flight hour

Identify Representative Scenarios

 US Army US Navy US Marine Corps US Air Force

UH-60Airborne Assault

CAS(Close-in Air

Support)

MH-60ASW

(Anti-Submarine Warfare)

ASuW(Anti-Surface

Warfare)

CH-53EHeavy Lift

Shore Assault

HADR(Humanitarian Aid

and Disaster Relief)

HH-60CSAR

(Combat Search and Rescue)

N/A

FORCE

HELO

MISSION

POTENTIAL EXCURSION

U.S. Navy

• Scenario over 1 Day of Navy ASW Operations

• 1 CSG

• 12 MH-60R per strike group (11 squadron + 1 on LCS)– 5 on CVN

– 6 on CRUDES 2 per platform

– 1 independent deployer on LCS

• Total of 63 flight hours per day– 4.5 hours spent refueling

12

US Marine Corps

• Lift scenario over 15hours of delivering power from sea to shore– 3 waves of vehicles– 4 refueling sorties

• 2 Squadron of CH-53E launched from sea– 14 CH-53E per sqaudron

• 10 ready to fly• 1 back-up• 3 in maintenance

• 20 CH-53E Heavy Lift– 13 Single external vehicle lift (65%)– 7 Double external vehicle lift (35%)

• 4 CH-53E Refueling– Internal fuel bladders

13

Identify Technologies for Inspection

Alternate Energy Sources

1. Electricity2. Hydrogen Fuel Cells3. Biofuels

• Convert fuel consumption cost into energy (Joules) cost, create a common metric• Map alternate energy outputs back to liquid fuel efficiencies gained• This will provide parameters for the executable model– What if we hit a scenario where hydrogen fuel cells give an increased energy

output?

Rotary Craft Design -- Trending technologies, progress, feasibility

1. Air-hybrid engine2. Diesel-Electric Propulsion system

Algae Biofuel

• Algae Characteristics o Freshwater Algaeo Grows Rapidly in Open “Raceway Pond” o Generates Oil which Becomes Biofuel/Biogas/Biohydrogen/Hydrocarbon/Bioethanolo Uses Liquid Waste from Wastewater Treatment Plants or other Nontoxic Liquid

Waste sourceso Requires CO2

• Testing & Production Progress Statuso Solazyme signed Contract w/ DOD to Provide 150,000 Gallons of Algae Biofuel

(September 2010) for Testing and Certification Purposeso Continental Airline Airplane Flew Two Hours Using 50 % Blend of Fuel Made from

Algae and Jatropha (Jan 2008) (Test Data Indicated 4% Increase in Energy Density).

o DARPA Led Contract to Identify Highly Efficient System to Produce Low-Cost Algal Oil Production and Conversion to JP-8 (2010). One Contract Metric is <$3/gallon production cost of JP-8 based on capacity of 50 Million gallons/yr

o Diamond Aircraft Powered by Pure Algae Biofuel Developed by EADS (Fuel Consumed 1.5L/hr Less than Conventional J-A1in 2010)

16

Solar & Battery Power

17

• Characteristicso Solar Cell and Composite Integrated into the Airframe & Rotor Structureso Lithium Batteries to Fly at Dusko UAV applications

• Adapted from Single-Seater Sunseeker II Technologyo Integrate Solar Cells into Wing Structureo Use Battery Power to Take Off (Four Packs of Lithium Polymer Batteries in Wingso Electric Motor of 5kW. Two have been built.  o A Design of Two-man Seat is in Work (20kW Electric Motor)

• Adapted from QinetiQ’s Zephyr UAV Technologyo High Altitude (70kft) Long Endurance (14n days) UAVo Flies by Day and Night Powered by Solar Energy.  o Lithium-Sulphur batteries are Recharged during Day Using Solar Power (Paper

thin United Solar Ovonic Solar Arrays Fixed to Transparent Mylar-Sheet Wing)o Silent Flighto Seven UAVs have been Produced o Contract w/ DOD to Perform In-Theatre Evaluation and possible Low Rate

Productiono Potential Applications in Defense, Security and Civil Requirementso Electric Motor of 1.5KW

Electric Power

• Conventional Lithium Ion Battery

• Lithium Air Battery– Rechargeable?

• Most ideal for shorter flight times

• Not ideal for heavy lift / long flight missions– Still very relevant and applicable

– Greatest benefit

• Ideal for ISR scenarios / craft

• Drive-trains…?

Hydrogen Fuel Cells

• Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM)

• Need more efficient fuel cell stacks– Or allow for large quantities of stacks onboard

• Very lightweight, no moving parts, can be isolated.

• Can be used in conjunction with electric powered motors and battery support

• Very dependent upon future power outputs and fuel cell designs

• Not viable for sole power resource for operational helos

EADS Diesel-Electric Hybrid

• Engine Components o Two Diesel-Electric Motor-Generator Unitso A Pair of Batteries o Power Electronics Unit

• Propulsion System Characteristicso Safe

Four Independent Sources of Energy Provide System Redundancyo Fuel Efficient via:

Less Aerodynamic Drag in Cruise Due to the Tilting Main Rotor and Its Electrical Drive Modern, Weight-Optimized Electrical Motors DrivingRotors Whose Speeds Can Be Adjusted & Controlled Individually Taking Off and Landing Utilize only Electrical Power OPOC Engines Operates at Most Fuel Efficient Operating Point

o Offer Fuel Economy Improvement of Up To 30% as Compared to Current Helicopter Turbine Engines

Optimum Speed Rotor (OSR)

• Characteristicso Rotor Speed (Revolution per Minute) Can Be Adjusted Depending on External

Condition (Altitude, Gross Weight & Cruise Speed) to Yield Optimum Rotation.  This Technology Saves Fuel Consumption and Maximize Time Aloft

o RPM Could Be Reduced to More Than Half its Maximum (140-350 RPM) in Low-Speed and Low-Weight Flight Which In Turn Reduces Fuel Efficiency

o Composite Airframe (Metal in Nose Frame, Bulkheads & ISR Payload Struss Structure)

Keep Structure Frequency Outside of Rotor Frequencyo Rotors Blades Design Complements the OSR System

Varying Stiffness and Cross Section along the Length Rigid, Low-Loading & Hingeless Design

• Adapted from Boeing A160 Hummingbird UAV o Intelligence Gathering o Dropping Supplies (2500lbs) to Frontline Troops o Engine Power of 426.7kW (572shp)o Fuel Efficient—1.5 Hrs of Fuel Remain After 18.7 Flying Hrs w/ 300lbs Payload

Model Development

• Excel based model

• Average fuel consumption for individual rotary aircraft at cruise speed and sea level– Total fuel capacity / Maximum Endurance = Burn Rate in lbs/hr

• Determines total expenditures per day for each scenario

• Variables– Aircraft available

– Burn rate

– Reserve (now at 10%)

– Available flight time

– Fuel cost per gallon

– Fuel weight per gallon

23

– Aircraft weight

– Lift capacity

– Cruise speed

Model

24

CSG Fuel Expenditure per Day

Helo InfoHelo Type MH-60R MH-60R MH-60R

CRUDES CVN LCSNumber of Aircraft 6 5 1Lbs of fuel tank 3982.5 3982.5 3982.5Gallons of fuel 590 590 590Max Fuel Usage 0.9 0.9 0.9Cruise Speed kts n/aBurn Rate lbs/hr 1194 1194 1194

Scenario InfoAircraft weight 22420 22420 22420Flight Altitude Sea level Sea level Sea levelAverage Speed cuise/hover cuise/hover cuise/hover

Mission PerformanceDistance N/A N/A N/ATotal Flight Time available 9 6 6Time spent refueling hr/day 1 0.5 0.5Lift weight N/A N/A N/A

CostCost ($ per gallon) of fuel 12 12 12

FuelFuel conversion lb/gal 6.75 6.75 6.75

OutputTotal Gallons Expended 32238 35820 7164Total Cost $386,856 $429,840 $85,968Gallons per nautical mile n/a n/a n/aGallons per hour 176.8888889 176.8888889 176.8888889Gallons per lift pound N/A N/A N/A$/nautical mile N/A N/A N/A$/hr $2,123 $2,123 $2,123$/Lift lb n/a n/a n/aMission Time 10 6.5 6.5

Outputs

-48-42-36-30-24-18-12 -6 0 -54-48-42-36-30-24-18-12 -6 0 6 12M I T H-R1BM I T H-R1BM I T H-R1BM I T H-R1B

M I T H-R1BM I T H-R1BM I T H-R1BM I T H-R1B

Prepositoned T H L/R/IPrepositoned T H L/R/I

M T H E HM T H E H

R1B External Loads begin to be staged and preped fr lift

R1B External Loads ready for pick

Inputs Flight Schedule

Next Steps

• Army scenarios

• Air Force scenarios

• Assimilation into a campaign

• Application of technologies

• Application of costs variance

25

Results

27

• Determine baseline fuel consumption

• Assess technological alternatives to find the trade-space in lowering fuel expenditure:– Potential cost savings

– Additional time on station

– Additional lift capacity

– Decreased mission time

BaselineIncrease Performance

Additional Lift , TOS, or Mission Completion

Decrease Cost Lower/Replace Fuel Consumption

Operational AdvantagesDecrease refueling needsTrade-offs

0

20000000

40000000

60000000

80000000

100000000

0 1 2 3 4 5

Gallons Baseline

WBS Status

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13 Week 14

Optimization of Liquid Fuel Decisions

1.0 Project Management

1.1 Project Structure

1.1.1 WBS/Task Creation 5                      

1.1.2 Project Schedule Derivation 9                      

1.1.3 Team Meetings

1.1.3.1 Peer Review of Deliverables 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1.1.3.2 Dry Run of Interim Progress/Final Presentation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1.1.4 Sponsor Meetings 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

1.1.5 Website Design 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1

1.2 Proposal Deliverable

1.2.1 Project Definition 15 15                       

1.2.2 Project Proposal 5 5                       

1.3 Delivery of Final Product

1.3.1 Completion of Final Report 5 9 18

1.3.2 Completion of Final Presentation 5 9 18

2.0 Project Design

2.1 Background Research and Metrics

2.1.1 Scoping fuel consumption 15 10                   

2.1.2 MoE/MoP Metrics 3 2                   

2.2 Identify Representative Scenarios

2.2.1 Scope missions 10 10 10               

2.2.2 Map missions to forces (Army, Navy, Air Force) 2 3 5              

2.2.3 Choose representative set

2.3 Identify Technologies for Inspection

2.3.1 Scope viable fuel technologies 5 10 10 10 9            

2.3.2 Eliminate unsuitable solutions 2 3            

2.3.2 Characterize technologies for modeling 3 3            

2.4 Develop Fuel Cost Estimation

2.4.1 Project future cost of fuel 3 5            

2.4.2 Bound the cost with a confidence interval 3            

2.5 Model Development

2.5.1 Model fuel consumption in scenarios 5 5 10 10        

2.5.2 Create user interface for variables and sensitivity analysis3 3        

2.5.3 Create output for MoE 3 3        

3.0 Analysis

3.1 Baseline

3.1.1 Run baseline analysis

3.1.1.1 2021 Fuel cost estimation 3 3        

3.1.1.2 2031 Fuel cost estimation 3 3        

3.1.2 Verify model and output 5 5 5 3        

3.2 Application of Technologies

3.1.1 2021 with projected fuel efficiency 2 5      

3.1.2 2031 with projected fuel efficiency 2 5      

3.3 Sensitivity Analysis

3.3.1 Run parametric sensitivity with fuel efficiency 10

3.4 Analyze Potential Cost Savings

3.4.1 Determine require fuel efficiency to pace inflation3    

3.4.2 Evaluate potential techinical and operation impacts 5 9    

3.5 Insights

3.5.1 Cyber warfare ramifications 1 3 7  

3.5.2 Role of rotary aircraft 1 3 7  

Totals 20 22 38 37 32 34 34 31 33 35 33 34 41 43

Planned Total 467

EVM

Website

• http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10785975/798website/ilfwebsite/index.html

References

• http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/FUEL111109.xml&headline=Report%20Says%20DOD%20Fuel%20Use%20A%20Security%20Concern

• http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf • http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=593• http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?

Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA233674• http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-02-

2602932101_x.htm• http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-

another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-• http://www.trackpads.com/forum/point-counterpoint-politics/154121-

helicopter-units-revert-vietnam-era-tactics.html• http://www.ndia-mich.org/workshop/Papers/Non-Primary%20Power/

Roche%20-%20Fuel%20Consumption%20Modeling%20And%20Simulation%20(M&S)%20to%20Support%20Military%20Systems%20Acquisition%20and%20Planning.pdf

BACK-UP

32

Background / Assumptions / Methodology

33

Background Research

 • 175% Increase in Gallon of Fuel Consumed

per Soldier per Day since Vietnam War

• Fuel Consumption of 22 Gallons/Soldier/Day in Iraq/Afghanistan War w/ a Projected Burn Rate of 1.5%/Year through 2017

 

• Defense Energy Support Center (US Military's Primary Fuel Broker) has contracts with the International Oil Trading Company; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Turkish Petrol Ofisi, Golteks and Tefirom. Contracts with these companies range from $1.99 a gallon to $5.30 a gallon.

• DESC sets fuel rates paid by military units. $3.51 a gallon for diesel $3.15 for gasoline $3.04 for jet fuel Avgas -- a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial vehicles -- is sold for $13.61 a gallon• Fuel Protection (from Ground & Air)• Accidents/Pilferage/Weather• IEDs• Inventory/Storage Due to Many Types of Fuel• Final Delivery Cost of $45 -$400/gallon to Remote Afghanistan

(lack of infrastructure, challenging geography, increased roadside attacks)

Background Research

 • 2001 DSB Report Recommends the Inclusion of

fuel efficiency in requirements and acquisition processes.

• Target fuel efficiency improvements through investments in Science and

Technology and systems design• The Principal Deputy Under Secretary ofDefense signed a memo stating “…include fuel

efficiency as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP) in all Operational Requirements Documents and Capstone Requirements Documents.”

Background Research

Past War Research

37

Scenarios

38

Technologies

39

Cost Estimation

40

Model Development

41

Analysis

42

Results

43